LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL REFORM.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXV, Issue 5117, 9 November 1903, Page 4

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL REFORM.

Whether the Second Chamber of onr Legislature shall ho abolished, reformed or continued in. its present form are questions that-the people of this country will shortly be called upon to consider. The Premier has recently declared himself in favour of terminating the existence of the Upper House, and substituting for it a Law Revision Committee. composed of experts in the making and interpreting of Acts of Parliament. It is doubtful if the public mind is yet prepared for such a drastic reform. Many thoughtful people rather favour the idea of making the Legislative Council an elective body, with some limitation as to the qualification of candidates or electors. The aim of such limitation is, of course, to prevent the Upper House being a mere replica of the Lower; but in carrying out this object care must be taken to avoid anything in the nature of class representation. To constitute a few large electorates, returning members on the Hare principle would tend to throw representation entirely into the hands of the wealthy class; and a similar objection might bofirged to the idea of imposing a property or income qualification for the Upper House franchise. The more feasible plan would seem to bo that the Council should ho elected by popular vote —each two of the present electorates returning one member—while at the same time it should he stipulated that no person should be eligible, as a candidate unless ho had reached a given ago, and served a certain number of years in the Lower House or in local governing bodies. .If such a plan wore adopted, and- Ore term of office made six years, wo should probably have a Second Chamber of a highly efficient kind, absolutely independent of the Government of the day, and responsible only to the people. Two objections to such a Chamber suggest themselves. (1) It would mean additional expense, for the salaries of member's would have to bo made at least equal to those of the popular representatives. (2) The Chamber would not bo free from party polities, and it might easily happen that its majority would bo in direct opposition to the majority in the Lower House. Neither objection is insuperable, for efficiency and independence would bo cheaply purchased at the extra cost involved, andl the fear of a deadlock or defeat of popular measures would be averted by a provision for both Chambers to sit together when they could not agree otherwise. The recent debate in the House of Representatives on the subject of the Upper Hoiuso need not be taken too seriously. For one tiling, the sincerity of those Opposition members who clamoured for an elective Council is open to grave suspicion. One point of their criticism, for example, was the statement that the Council had recently been strengthened by the dominant Premier. There is nothing new in the assertion, nor is there any novelty in the method, for the leader of the Government of the day must, in accordance with constitutional practice, present to the Governor the names of the persons recommended for appointment to the Council. Let Oppositionists recall the eventfnl election of 1890. when the Atkinson Ministry was completely beaten at the polls, and retired from office before the extra session opened in January, 1891, without meeting the new House. Sir Harry Atkinson resigned his seat in tiie House, and was appointed a member of the

Council the same day, and also promoted to the Speakership of that august body, by recommendation of tho Ministry from which ho had just retired. No ono objected to this appointment. Sir Harry had served bis country effectively in the field in war times, and had also been repeatedly tho head oi tho Government. The position of Speaker of the Council then was in the gift of the Crown, not in that of tho members of tho Council, who now, from among themselves, elect their Speaker. Sir Harry Atkinson did not go alone to that Chamber of ordinarily serene atmosphere. Ho was accompanied by no fewer than six other gentlemen, mostly wealthy colonists. Hero is tho list as it appeared in the “Gazette” of 23rd January, 1891, the very day tho uew Parliament assembled:—

Colonial Secretary’s Office, Wellington, January 23, 1891. His excellency the Governor has, in her Majesty’s name, summoned— The Hou. Sir Harry Albert Atkinson, K.C.M.G., of New PJy- . mouth; Charles Christopher Bowen, Esq., of Christchurch; James Fulton, Esq., of Taiori; ■ Charles John Johnston, Esq., of Wellington; John Davies Ormond, Esq., of Napier; William Downie Stewart, Esq., of Dunedin ; and John Blair Whyte, Esq., of Auckland, to the Legislative Council of New Zqqland, by writs of summons under the seal of tho colony. It does not necessarily follow that tho appointments were wrong, or that all the new Councillors were not well qualified for the positions they had obtained. Six of them had been in tho Lower House. Some of them had been defeated at the immediately preceding general election, and, therefore, some had had experience. Three of tho seven had been Ministers of the Crown. There can, however, he no doubt that such a wholesale creation of Conservative members, at,the moment a Liberal Government was to succeed the defunct Ministry, was a stretch of patronage difficjult to justify. All these gentlemen were ranged in opposition to the now Government, and have, all of them who still survive, maintained tlio same attitude towards tho Liberal Government which has hold office for more thau twelve years. How can Mr Massey, as leader of tho Opposition, now advocate an elective Council, unless it ho for the purpose of defeating democratic progress? Tho experience of an elective Upper Houso in tho State of Victoria has nob been speh as to warrant an expectation' of a happy communion between the two Chambers, and the same experience is being repeated in the case of tho Commonwealth Parliament. A Council elected on some snob basis as we have suggested, if accompanied by a provision to avoid deadlocks, might, however, he a very useful body, whoso criticisms would coudiuce to' sound legislation, without any danger of the expressed will of the people being defeated. Certainly. if there is to ho any reform attempted, it should take this shape rather than that of complete abolition of the Chamber.